Abstract
Individuals can now obtain their personal genomic information via direct-to-consumer genetic testing, but what, if any, impact will this have on their lifestyle and health? A recent longitudinal cohort study of individuals who underwent consumer genome scanning found minimal impacts of testing on risk-reducing lifestyle behaviors, such as diet and exercise. These results raise an important question: is personal genomic information likely to beneficially impact public health through motivation of lifestyle behavioral change? In this article, we review the literature on lifestyle behavioral change in response to genetic testing for common disease susceptibility variants. We find that only a few studies have been carried out, and that those that have been done have yielded little evidence to suggest that the mere provision of genetic information alone results in widespread changes in lifestyle health behaviors. We suggest that further study of this issue is needed, in particular studies that examine response to multiplex testing for multiple genetic markers and conditions. This will be critical as we anticipate the wide availability of whole-genome sequencing and more comprehensive phenotyping of individuals. We also note that while simple communication of genomic information and disease susceptibility may be sufficient to catalyze lifestyle changes in some highly motivated groups of individuals, for others, additional strategies may be required to prompt changes, including more sophisticated means of risk communication (e.g., in the context of social norm feedback) either alone or in combination with other promising interventions (e.g., real-time wireless health monitoring devices).
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: ▪ of interest
Bibliography
- 1 Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature422(6934),835–847 (2003).
- 2 Evans JP, Meslin EM, Marteau TM, Caulfield T. Genomics. Deflating the genomic bubble. Science331(6019),861–862 (2011).
- 3 Green MJ, Botkin JR. “Genetic exceptionalism” in medicine: clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests. Ann. Intern. Med.138(7),571–575 (2003).
- 4 Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N. Engl. J. Med.364(6),524–534 (2011).▪ First study of the behavioral response to multiplex direct-to-consumer genomic testing.
- 5 Topol EJ. Transforming medicine via digital innovation. Sci. Transl. Med.2(16),16cm4 (2010).
- 6 Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet. Med.10(1),19–32 (2008).▪ Comprehensive review of clinical and behavioral impacts of genetic testing and risk disclosure for single-gene conditions.
- 7 Willett WC. Balancing life-style and genomics research for disease prevention. Science296(5568),695–698 (2002).
- 8 Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.2010(10),CD007275 (2010).▪ Review of behavioral impacts of genetic susceptibilty testing.
- 9 Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG. Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA299(11),1320–1334 (2008).
- 10 Beery TA, Williams JK. Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders. Genet. Test.11(2),111–123 (2007).
- 11 McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA. The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu. Rev. Public Health31,89–103 (2010).
- 12 O’Daniel JM, Haga SB, Willard HF. Considerations for the impact of personal genome information: a study of genomic profiling among genetics and genomics professionals. J. Genet. Couns.19(4),387–401 (2010).
- 13 Maiman LA, Becker MH. The health belief model: origins and correlates in psychological theory. Health Education Monographs2,336–353 (1974).
- 14 MacArthur D. 23andMe releases results for major Alzheimer’s risk marker. In: Wired. Anderson C (Ed.). NY, USA (?2011).
- 15 Mason JO, Ogden HG, Berreth DA, Martin LY. Interpreting risks to the public. Am. J. Prev. Med.2(3),133–139 (1986).
- 16 Rudd J, Glanz K. How individuals use information for health action: consumer information processing. In: Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK (Eds). Jossey-Bass, CA, USA (1990).
- 17 Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science185(4157),1124–1131 (1974).
- 18 Miller SM, Diefenbach MA. C-SHIP: a cognitive-social health information processing approach to cancer. In: Perspectives in Behavioral Medicine. Krantz D (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ, USA, 219–244 (1998).
- 19 Rogers RW. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Social Psychophysiology. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (Eds). Guilford Press, NY, USA, 153–176 (1983).
- 20 Wallston KA, Wallston BS, Smith S, Dobbins CJ. Perceived control and health. Curr. Psychol. Res. Rev.6(1),5–25 (1987).
- 21 Coulson NS, Buchanan H, Aubeeluck A. Social support in cyberspace: a content analysis of communication within a Huntington’s disease online support group. Patient Educ. Couns.68(2),173–178 (2007).
- 22 Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA (1977).
- 23 Lewis MA, Neighbors C. Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: a review of the research on personalized normative feedback. J. Am. Coll. Health54(4),213–218 (2006).
- 24 Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Weath, and Happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA (2008).
- 25 Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP. Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health? BMJ342,d228 (2011).▪ Commentary on the use of ‘nudging’ as a population health intervention.
- 26 Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, Issell B, Topol EJ, Schork NJ. The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Per. Med.8(2),161–173 (2011).
- 27 McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM et al. Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African–American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.11(6),521–528 (2002).
- 28 Baranowski T, Buday R, Thompson DI, Baranowski J. Playing for real: video games and stories for health-related behavior change. Am. J. Prev. Med.34(1),74–82 (2008).
- 29 Goetz T. Harnessing the power of feedback loops. In: Wired. Goetz T (Ed.). NY, USA, 125–133, 162–164 (2011).
- 30 Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ. Behav.31(2),143–164 (2004).
- 31 Chao S, Roberts JS, Marteau TM, Silliman R, Cupples LA, Green RC. Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: The REVEAL Study. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord.22(1),94–97 (2008).
- 101 Healthy People www.healthypeople.gov
- 102 Navigenics www.navigenics.com
- 103 23andMe www.23andme.com
- 104 Fitbit www.fitbit.com
- 105 Patients Like Me www.patientslikeme.com
- 106 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Youtube www.youtube.com/user/CDCStreamingHealth
- 107 Alabama Department of Public Health on Facebook www.facebook.com/alabamapublichealth
- 108 United States Government Accountability Office. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: misleading test results are further complicated by deceptive marketing and other questionable practices. www.gao.gov/new.items/d10847t.pdf
